• Something wrong with this record ?

The nectar spur is not only a simple specialization for long-proboscid pollinators

A. Vlašánková, E. Padyšáková, M. Bartoš, X. Mengual, P. Janečková, Š. Janeček,

. 2017 ; 215 (4) : 1574-1581. [pub] 20170705

Language English Country England, Great Britain

Document type Journal Article

Persistent link   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc18024871

Since the time of Darwin, biologists have considered the floral nectar spur to be an adaptation representing a high degree of plant specialization. Nevertheless, some researchers suggest that nature is more complex and that even morphologically specialized plants attract a wide spectrum of visitors. We observed visitors on Impatiens burtonii (Balsaminaceae) and measured the depth of the proboscis insertion into the spur, the distance of the nectar surface from the spur entrance and the visitor's effectiveness. The hoverfly Melanostoma sp., with the shortest proboscis, was most active early in the morning and fed on pollen and nectar near the spur entrance. The honeybee Apis mellifera and the hoverfly Rhingia mecyana were the most frequent visitors before and after noon, respectively. Although R. mecyana, the only visitor able to reach the end of the spur, was the most frequent, it did not deposit the largest number of pollen grains per visit. Nectar spurs may function as complex structures allowing pollination by both short- and long-proboscid visitors and separating their spatial and temporal niches. Spurred plants should be considered as more generalized and exposed to more diverse selection pressures than previously believed.

References provided by Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc18024871
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20180710093845.0
007      
ta
008      
180709s2017 enk f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1111/nph.14677 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)28677219
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a enk
100    1_
$a Vlašánková, Anna $u Biology Centre, Institute of Entomology, The Czech Academy of Sciences, Branišovská 31, CZ-370 05, České Budějovice, Czech Republic. Faculty of Science, University of South Bohemia, Branišovská 31, CZ-370 05, České Budějovice, Czech Republic.
245    14
$a The nectar spur is not only a simple specialization for long-proboscid pollinators / $c A. Vlašánková, E. Padyšáková, M. Bartoš, X. Mengual, P. Janečková, Š. Janeček,
520    9_
$a Since the time of Darwin, biologists have considered the floral nectar spur to be an adaptation representing a high degree of plant specialization. Nevertheless, some researchers suggest that nature is more complex and that even morphologically specialized plants attract a wide spectrum of visitors. We observed visitors on Impatiens burtonii (Balsaminaceae) and measured the depth of the proboscis insertion into the spur, the distance of the nectar surface from the spur entrance and the visitor's effectiveness. The hoverfly Melanostoma sp., with the shortest proboscis, was most active early in the morning and fed on pollen and nectar near the spur entrance. The honeybee Apis mellifera and the hoverfly Rhingia mecyana were the most frequent visitors before and after noon, respectively. Although R. mecyana, the only visitor able to reach the end of the spur, was the most frequent, it did not deposit the largest number of pollen grains per visit. Nectar spurs may function as complex structures allowing pollination by both short- and long-proboscid visitors and separating their spatial and temporal niches. Spurred plants should be considered as more generalized and exposed to more diverse selection pressures than previously believed.
650    _2
$a zvířata $7 D000818
650    _2
$a chování zvířat $x fyziologie $7 D001522
650    _2
$a cirkadiánní rytmus $x fyziologie $7 D002940
650    _2
$a Impatiens $x fyziologie $7 D029069
650    _2
$a hmyz $x fyziologie $7 D007313
650    _2
$a rostlinný nektar $x metabolismus $7 D057048
650    _2
$a opylení $x fyziologie $7 D054817
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
700    1_
$a Padyšáková, Eliška $u Biology Centre, Institute of Entomology, The Czech Academy of Sciences, Branišovská 31, CZ-370 05, České Budějovice, Czech Republic. Department of Ecology, Faculty of Science, Charles University, Viničná 7, CZ-128 44, Praha 2, Czech Republic.
700    1_
$a Bartoš, Michael $u Department of Ecology, Faculty of Science, Charles University, Viničná 7, CZ-128 44, Praha 2, Czech Republic. Institute of Botany, The Czech Academy of Sciences, Dukelská 135, CZ-379 82, Třeboň, Czech Republic.
700    1_
$a Mengual, Ximo $u Zoologisches Forschungsmuseum Alexander Koenig, Leibniz-Institut für Biodiversität der Tiere, Adenauerallee 160, 53113, Bonn, Germany.
700    1_
$a Janečková, Petra $u Faculty of Science, University of South Bohemia, Branišovská 31, CZ-370 05, České Budějovice, Czech Republic. Institute of Botany, The Czech Academy of Sciences, Dukelská 135, CZ-379 82, Třeboň, Czech Republic.
700    1_
$a Janeček, Štěpán $u Department of Ecology, Faculty of Science, Charles University, Viničná 7, CZ-128 44, Praha 2, Czech Republic. Institute of Botany, The Czech Academy of Sciences, Dukelská 135, CZ-379 82, Třeboň, Czech Republic.
773    0_
$w MED00007692 $t The New phytologist $x 1469-8137 $g Roč. 215, č. 4 (2017), s. 1574-1581
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28677219 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y a $z 0
990    __
$a 20180709 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20180710094135 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1317002 $s 1021792
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2017 $b 215 $c 4 $d 1574-1581 $e 20170705 $i 1469-8137 $m New phytologist $n New Phytol $x MED00007692
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20180709
Back

Find record

Citation metrics

    Archiving options